Donald Trump’s presidency has been a revolutionary force against what many have labelled the ‘deep state.’ Accustomed to unimpeded control, the deep state is now reacting negatively to the most prominent populist leader in recent memory, accusing him of posing an authoritarian threat to democratic values. However, one may wonder: is Trump actively using lawfare to unjustly pursue his political adversaries? Is he endangering the freedom of academia or the press? Or causing a risk to judicial independence? It appears these allegations lack merit.
Critical voices have mainly emerged from groups that seek to suppress voters’ choices during elections, ironically labelling Trump’s resistance as the ‘true danger’ to democracy. Our political system has seen the deep state become overly comfortable in its ability to control Washington’s workings, leading to outrage when Trump dared to challenge them. Shattering the spell of their unopposed reign has provoked criticism that is, quite transparently, absurd.
Turning to the other side of the pond, there are concerns about the United Kingdom’s restrictions on expression around sensitive topics such as abortion. Supposedly, freedom of speech should not be curbed when individuals wish to express their views on abortion, wish to pray silently, or choose to remain physically present near abortion clinics. However, Public Spaces Protection Orders in the UK have allowed local authorities to constrain virtually any chosen activity.
A troubling trend has emerged where pro-life advocates have found themselves arrested for actions as peaceful as praying near clinics or silently displaying signs expressing their views on abortion. Any behavior perceived as voicing an opinion about abortion could be interpreted as an infringement. But isn’t the true test of freedom whether these advocates are causing harm to others or obstructing them from partaking in their legal activities?
Freedom can’t be safeguarded with authoritarian measures. Once authorities secure the ability to moderate our thoughts, the sword of regulation will inevitably fall on us all, regardless of our stance on divisive issues like abortion. In the realm of economics, Democrats are reportedly posturing as proponents of free trade.
It’s somewhat amusing to see previously protectionist Democrats posing as staunch free-traders. Take Governor Gavin Newsom of California, for example, whose grandstanding around the issue appears vacant of substance; or Senator Elizabeth Warren, who dislikes Trump’s tariffs yet pledged to instigate an ‘economic patriotism’ to shift our trade policy and penalize nations violating US environmental and labor standards during her 2019 presidential campaign.
Interestingly enough, Democratic-dominated states could have a compelling legal argument that Trump’s tariffs overstep the bounds of presidential authority. Yet, they have refrained from legal action. The reluctance could stem from protecting the possibility of imposing a carbon tax on imports, or perhaps their loyal labor unions endorsing tariffs. If Warren and Newsom are sincere in their beliefs, they should take the matter to court.
Moving to the west coast, Oakland’s political scene introduces a fresh non-populist contender for the mayoral race: Loren Taylor. In the midst of escalating crime rates, increased business exodus from the city, and growing residents’ dissatisfaction, Taylor’s candidacy makes sense. This likely explains why the San Francisco Chronicle endorsed him and why he has surpassed Lee in fundraising activities.
Former Mayor Sheng Thao’s catastrophic legacy, marked by police defunding and public corruption, casts a dark shadow over Lee, who has received backing from many of Thao’s former supporters. Even left-leaning individuals are now taking aim at city activists for Oakland’s decline. There was already a reaction against the Democratic machinery when voters ousted Thao.
In the upcoming election, the citizens of Oakland may further act upon their frustrations by choosing to reject Lee. Switching realm to foreign policy, Brett McGurk, Former National Security Adviser, offered an astute piece of advice: engaging in a war with Israel is a futile endeavor, as history has repeatedly proved.
Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria have all experienced the undesirable consequences of initiating a conflict with Israel. Egypt, after a direct confrontation, had to resolve to negotiation to get its land back. In Syria, the Assad regime realized that the possibility of defeating Israel militarily had long vanished.
Lebanon, on the other hand, is dealing with an economic meltdown. Both Hezbollah and Hamas, despite knowing the potential havoc Israel can wreak, persist in their aggressive postures. At its core, the reason anyone, without exception, decides to wage war against Israel is to inflict misery upon both their people and the Israelis.
In summary, differing political realities across the globe have brought to fore several thought-provoking discussions. Be it the changed political landscape in the US with a populist president, the restriction on freedom of expression in the UK, politically convenient posturing by Democrats on free trade, the changing political atmosphere in Oakland or the lessons from history about the futility of instigating a war with Israel, we live in complex, challenging, but equally fascinating times.